RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns. regards Tero Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@xxxxxxx ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? Thanks. Jon On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; bc - GNSO list < bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.rnapartners.com ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
Brussels Intersessional Meeting- GAC Communique.pdf